Last year Senator and GOP Presidential nominee John McCain voted in favor of a proposal by Colorado's own Senator Wayne Allard to end the federal minimum wage.
The federal government provides many means based programs and shouldn't have to subsidize companies that participate in interstate commerce that require social welfare payments for its employees.
The spending power extends to the power to spend for the general welfare. The federal government doesn't have regulatory power for the general welfare, but the power to tax and spend does extent to the general welfare.
Yes, the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause have been interpreted by the courts to eviscerate the Tenth Amendment. It's the reason, for example, DEA agents claim the authority to storm medical marijuana co-operative farms where the produce is used in the same state.
If we want to avoid a police state, we need to shrink the federal government and return some of the functions it has assumed, such as welfare and minimum wage, to the states where they Constitutionally belong.
I certainly don't think we have a perfect federalism, although I'm not convinced that the courts are good arbiters of federalism and I don't agree that either welfare or the minimum wage are issues to which state and local governments are well suited.
I would favor largely removing the federal courts from civil litigation between private parties, and removing many duplicative federal crimes like bank robbery, from the federal criminal code.
On the other hand, there are some matters, like interstate sales tax collection, where I think there is room for a larger federal role.
6 comments:
Where is the federal minimum wage authorized in the Constitution?
The Constitution aside, is there even a valid argument as to why a federal minimum wage is better than state-level minimum wages?
Regulation of interstate commerce.
The federal government provides many means based programs and shouldn't have to subsidize companies that participate in interstate commerce that require social welfare payments for its employees.
How is the federal government being involved in social welfare Constitutional?
The spending power extends to the power to spend for the general welfare. The federal government doesn't have regulatory power for the general welfare, but the power to tax and spend does extent to the general welfare.
Yes, the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause have been interpreted by the courts to eviscerate the Tenth Amendment. It's the reason, for example, DEA agents claim the authority to storm medical marijuana co-operative farms where the produce is used in the same state.
If we want to avoid a police state, we need to shrink the federal government and return some of the functions it has assumed, such as welfare and minimum wage, to the states where they Constitutionally belong.
I certainly don't think we have a perfect federalism, although I'm not convinced that the courts are good arbiters of federalism and I don't agree that either welfare or the minimum wage are issues to which state and local governments are well suited.
I would favor largely removing the federal courts from civil litigation between private parties, and removing many duplicative federal crimes like bank robbery, from the federal criminal code.
On the other hand, there are some matters, like interstate sales tax collection, where I think there is room for a larger federal role.
Post a Comment